DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/15/2026 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yaremenko (US20110272413).
13. (Original) A collapsible fuel container (Figs. 1-10, paragraph 0032) comprising: a container body (14) defining an exterior body of the collapsible fuel container; an inner bladder (12) defining a hollow interior, the inner bladder being disposed within the container body and configured to be filled with a fuel and expanded (paragraph 0032); a body restraint harness assembly (18), the body restraint harness assembly being secured to an exterior portion of the inner bladder (and outer bladder) and substantially preventing at least one of vibrations or g-forces through the collapsible fuel container (by securing the container against vibrations); and a tiedown harness assembly (18), the tiedown harness assembly being disposed about an exterior portion of the container body (Fig. 4) and being configured to secure the collapsible fuel container to a platform (Fig. 4).
14. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 13, wherein the body restraint harness assembly includes one or more lateral restraint harnesses that extend along a length of the inner bladder and one or more radial restraint harnesses that extend along a width of the inner bladder (see harness 18, where it extends laterally across the top of the container).
15. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 14, wherein the one or more lateral restraint harnesses include two or more lateral restraint harnesses spaced radially along the inner bladder (see Fig. 3 for the harnesses).
16. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 15, wherein the one or more radial restraint harnesses include two or more radial restraint harnesses spaced laterally along the inner bladder such that the two or more radial restraint harnesses are substantially square with the two or more lateral restraint harnesses (see harness 18, where it extends laterally across the top of the container and Fig. 3).
17. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 13, wherein the tiedown harness assembly includes one or more lateral tiedown harnesses and one or more radial tiedown harnesses (see harness 18, where it extends laterally across the top of the container).
18. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 17, wherein the one or more lateral tiedown harnesses extend at a non-zero angle with respect to a lateral direction of the inner bladder (see harness 18, where it extends laterally across the top of the container at a zero angle).
19. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 18, further comprising a fill assembly configured to direct the fuel into the inner bladder and a vent assembly configured to vent vapors from the inner bladder, wherein the one or more lateral tiedown harnesses extend at an angle away from the fill assembly and the vent assembly (paragraph 0032).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 20-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaremenko (US20110272413).
1. Yaremenko teaches a collapsible fuel container (Figs. 1-10, paragraph 0032) comprising: a container body (14) defining a exterior body of the collapsible fuel container, wherein the container body is made of a material that is resistant to punctures from high velocity projectiles (the material is resistant to punctures of projectiles, depending on the force) and is configured to be collapsed and condensed (paraph 0032); and an inner bladder (12) defining a hollow interior, the inner bladder being disposed within the container body and configured to be filled with a fuel and expanded (paragraph 0032). Yaremenko DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the container body and the inner bladder together are resistant to the high velocity projectiles up to 600 ft/s without puncturing the inner bladder. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, discovering an optimal or workable range is within the skill level of one of ordinary skill within the art. It would have been obvious to, one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to employ the container to withstand such a velocity projectile, in order to have a container that has the desired strength needed by a consumer.
2. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 1, Yaremenko DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the container body is made of a poly-para-phenylene terephthalamide material. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Therefore, it would have been obvious to, one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to employ the container of such a material, in order to have a high strength container.
3. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 1, Yaremenko DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the container body includes a coating of thermoplastic urethane. Official Notice is taken that it is old and well known to coat containers with thermoplastic urethane. Therefore, it would have been obvious to, one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to employ the container of such a coating, in order to have a protective outer layer.
4. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 1, Yaremenko DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the inner bladder is made of nylon. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Therefore, it would have been obvious to, one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to employ the container of such a material, in order to have a high strength container.
5. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 1, further comprising a body restraint harness assembly disposed about an exterior portion of the inner bladder, the body restraint harness assembly being configured to substantially prevent at least one of vibrations or g-forces through the
inner bladder (where the container is capable of such).
6. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 5, wherein the body restraint harness assembly includes one or more lateral restraint harnesses that extend along a length of the inner bladder and one or more radial restraint harnesses that extend along a width of the inner bladder (harness extends outside outer and inner blader).
7. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 1, further comprising a tiedown harness (18) assembly disposed about an exterior portion of the container body and being configured to secure the collapsible fuel container to a platform (Fig. 3).
8. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 7, wherein the tiedown harness assembly includes one or more lateral tiedown harnesses and one or more radial tiedown harnesses (Fig. 3 at 18).
9. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 8, wherein the one or more lateral tiedown harnesses extend at a non-zero angle with respect to a lateral direction of the inner bladder (horizontal zero angle across the top of the harness).
10. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 9, further comprising a fill assembly configured to direct the fuel into the inner bladder and a vent assembly configured to vent vapors from the inner bladder, wherein the one or more lateral tiedown harnesses extend at a non-zero angle away from the fill assembly and the vent assembly (paragraph 0035).
11. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 1, further comprising one or more baffles disposed within the inner bladder, the one or more baffles being configured to prevent fluid surge of the fuel within the inner bladder (see Fig. 7).
12. (Currently Amended) The collapsible fuel container of claim 11, wherein the hollow interior includes a first radial side and a second radial side, the inner bladder has a width, and the one or more baffles have a baffle width that is less than the width of the inner bladder such that the one or more baffles define a gap between the one or more baffles and the first radial side and the second
radial side of the hollow interior of the inner bladder along the width (allowing the baffle to fit in the inner blader).
20. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 13, Yaremenko DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the container body and the inner bladder together are resistant to high velocity projectiles up to 600 ft/s without puncturing the inner bladder. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, discovering an optimal or workable range is within the skill level of one of ordinary skill within the art. It would have been obvious to, one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to employ the container to withstand such a velocity projectile, in order to have a container that has the desired strength needed by a consumer.
21. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 1, Yaremenko DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the container body is made of a poly-para-phenylene terephthalamide material. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Therefore, it would have been obvious to, one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to employ the container of such a material, in order to have a high strength container.
22. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 1, Yaremenko DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the container body includes a coating of thermoplastic urethane. Official Notice is taken that it is old and well known to coat containers with thermoplastic urethane. Therefore, it would have been obvious to, one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to employ the container of such a coating, in order to have a protective outer layer.
23. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 1, Yaremenko DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the inner bladder is made of nylon. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Therefore, it would have been obvious to, one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to employ the container of such a material, in order to have a high strength container.
24. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 13, further comprising one or more baffles disposed within the inner bladder, the one or more baffles being configured to prevent fluid surge of the fuel within the inner bladder (see Fig. 7).
25. (Currently Amended) The collapsible fuel container of claim 11, wherein the hollow interior includes a first radial side and a second radial side, the inner bladder has a width, and the one or more baffles have a baffle width that is less than the width of the inner bladder such that the one or more baffles define a gap between the one or more baffles and the first radial side and the second
radial side of the hollow interior of the inner bladder along the width (allowing the baffle to fit in the inner blader).
26. (Previously Presented) A collapsible fuel container (Figs 1-10, paragraph 0032 comprising: a container body (14) defining an exterior body of the collapsible fuel container; an inner bladder (12) defining a hollow interior and having a width, the inner bladder being disposed within the container body (10) and configured to be filled with a fuel and expanded (paragraph 0032), wherein the hollow interior includes a first radial side and a second radial side (sides of hollow interior); and one or more baffles (28) disposed within the inner bladder and extending from a bottom side to a top side of an interior of the inner bladder, wherein the one or more baffles having a baffle width that is less than the width of the hollow interior of the inner bladder (allowing it to fit within the inner bladder) such that the one or more baffles define a gap between the one or more baffles and the first radial side and the second radial side of the hollow interior of the inner bladder (see gaps between baffles in Fig. 7).
27. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 26, wherein the one or more baffles include a generally wavy shape defined by one or more wavy sections that extend along the baffle width (see Fig. 8).
28. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 27, wherein the one or more wavy sections include one or more first wavy sections that bend in a first direction and one or more second wavy sections that bend in a second direction opposite the first direction (see Fig. 8).
29. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 26, Yaremenko DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the container body and the inner bladder together are resistant to high velocity projectiles up to 600 ft/s without puncturing the inner bladder. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, discovering an optimal or workable range is within the skill level of one of ordinary skill within the art. It would have been obvious to, one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to employ the container to withstand such a velocity projectile, in order to have a container that has the desired strength needed by a consumer.
30. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 1, Yaremenko DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the container body is made of a poly-para-phenylene terephthalamide material. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Therefore, it would have been obvious to, one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to employ the container of such a material, in order to have a high strength container.
31. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 1, Yaremenko DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the container body includes a coating of thermoplastic urethane. Official Notice is taken that it is old and well known to coat containers with thermoplastic urethane. Therefore, it would have been obvious to, one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to employ the container of such a coating, in order to have a protective outer layer.
32. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 1, Yaremenko DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the inner bladder is made of nylon. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Therefore, it would have been obvious to, one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to employ the container of such a material, in order to have a high strength container.
33. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 26, further comprising a body restraint harness assembly (Fig. 4) disposed about an exterior portion of the inner bladder, the body restraint harness assembly being configured to substantially prevent at least one of vibrations or g-forces through the inner bladder (the harness is capable of such).
34. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 33, wherein the body restraint harness (18) assembly includes one or more lateral restraint harnesses that extend along a length of the inner bladder and one or more radial restraint harnesses that extend along a width of the inner bladder (Fig. 4 at 18).
35. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 26, further comprising a tiedown harness (hooks on 18) assembly disposed about an exterior portion of the container body and being configured to secure the collapsible fuel container to a platform (Fig. 4 at 18).
36. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 35, wherein the tiedown harness assembly includes one or more lateral tiedown harnesses and one or more radial tiedown harnesses (Fig. 4 at 18).
37. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 36, wherein the one or more lateral tiedown harnesses extend at a non-zero angle with respect to a lateral direction of the inner bladder Fig. 4 at 18 where harness is laterally across the top of the container).
38. (Original) The collapsible fuel container of claim 37, further comprising a fill assembly configured to direct the fuel into the inner bladder and a vent assembly configured to vent vapors from the inner bladder, wherein the one or more lateral tiedown harnesses extend at an angle away from the fill assembly and the vent assembly (paragraph 0035).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREEN KAY THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-5611. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAREEN K THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights